Skip to main content

1-20 of 264 results for subject:Liability

Member X
Andrew Dismore

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Dismore, Andrew (264)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I think that legislation has only just come into force, so it would be difficult to monitor the costs so far, but they arise in two situations. One is when the Government are the de facto defendant, often standing in the shoes of a former nationalised industry, and the other...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c576-7;505 c577-8
House
House of Commons

I know that the hon. Lady was present at the previous Bill's Committee stage last time, but because of a slight hiccup, which we need not go into, she was unable to participate in the Committee. This Bill is identical to the one that went through its Committee stage at...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c579;505 c580
House
House of Commons

Pleural plaques are evidence of exposure to asbestos. The question of a medical link between the one and the other may be arguable, but the statistical link is not. We know the number of people who suffer from pleural plaques, and the number of people who get mesothelioma, and the...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c578-9;505 c579-80
House
House of Commons

I did not take the suggestion that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made in a pejorative way. My Bill is a lawyer's Bill in the sense that lawyers can understand it, because it deals with our concepts, but it is also a Bill meant for ordinary, common, working...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c578;505 c579
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Basically, the problem is that the test for a physical injury is subjective. It is sometimes referred to as the "thin skull test"—the victim is taken as found, and if they have a thin skull and have had a brick dropped on their...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c576;505 c577
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. We have had a full debate. I do not think there is anything more to say, so I hope the House will now give the Bill a Third Reading.

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c588;505 c590
House
House of Commons

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for comments from Members from across the House. We have aired the issue yet again; I have lost count of the number of times that we have debated pleural plaques in the House. I am not sure that...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c588;505 c589
House
House of Commons

I want to make two points. First, the Bill makes it clear that the only pleural plaques that would be compensatable under it would be those that are asbestos-related. Secondly, I am not aware of any other source of potential pleural plaques but, come what may, it is still for...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c585;505 c586
House
House of Commons

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c585;505 c586
House
House of Commons

My right hon. Friend can square the circle in a relatively straightforward way. He does not have to use primary legislation. This is a question of what evidence is sufficient to satisfy the court, rather than one of debarring anyone from bringing their claim to court. The court may not...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c586;505 c587
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Today is Groundhog day for this Bill, because its terms are exactly the same as those of a Bill that passed through the House last year. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time for that Bill to go through...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c574-6;505 c575-7
House
House of Commons

Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (No.2) Bill second reading debate. Agreed to on question. Committee stage. Clauses 1-5 agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Third reading debate agreed to and passed.

Lead member
Andrew Dismore
Answering member
Lord Wills
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Debates on bills
Date
5 February 2010
Reference
505 c574-90;505 c575-91
House
House of Commons
Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Presentation bills
Date
6 January 2010
Reference
Bill 34 2009-10
House
House of Commons
Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Presentation bills
Date
6 January 2010
Reference
Bill 41 2009-10
House
House of Commons

I do not want to detain the House for long, but I wish to thank every Member who has spoken in this debate. The Bill had no priority whatever. It was a presentation Bill, the product of my spending an uncomfortable night on the floor of the Public Bill Office...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 October 2009
Reference
497 c579-80
House
House of Commons

Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) Bill. Report stage debate. Third reading debate. Agreed to on division (51 votes to 0) and Bill passed.

Lead member
Andrew Dismore
Answering member
Bridget Prentice
Department
Ministry of Justice
Type
Debates on bills
Date
16 October 2009
Reference
497 c552-80
House
House of Commons

The amendments would make no difference to the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. There would be no benefit to her whether or not they were accepted, because the measure applies only to pleural plaques.

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 October 2009
Reference
497 c561
House
House of Commons

We could end up in a rather semantic jurisprudential argument about what was or was not the law before the House of Lords judgment. Theoretically, the House of Lords simply stated what the law always was, so to that extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in practice the...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 October 2009
Reference
497 c561
House
House of Commons

On many occasions, when there has been some weird and wonderful House of Lords decision, the House has passed legislation to put the law back to what people thought it always was. I remember that the decision on causation in the Fairchild case was corrected in the House—putting the law...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 October 2009
Reference
497 c561-2
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am very pleased that the Bill has been able to get this far. Perhaps it is more than a coincidence that today is the 175th anniversary of the great fire of Westminster. If there had been...

Member
Andrew Dismore (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 October 2009
Reference
497 c567-8
House
House of Commons